On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 05:41:02PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Greg Smith <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In general, through, diskchecker.pl is the more sensitive test. If it > > fails, storage is unreliable for PostgreSQL, period. It's good that you've > > followed up by confirming the real database corruption implied by that is > > also visible. In general, though, that's not needed. Diskchecker says the > > drive is bad, you're done--don't put a database on it. Doing the database > > level tests is more for finding false positives: where diskchecker says the > > drive is OK, but perhaps there is a filesystem problem that makes it > > unreliable, one that it doesn't test for. > > Thanks. That's the conclusion we were coming to too, though all I've > seen is lost transactions and not any other form of damage. > > > What SSD are you using? The Intel 320 and 710 series models are the only > > SATA-connected drives still on the market I know of that pass a serious > > test. The other good models are direct PCI-E storage units, like the > > FusionIO drives. > > I don't have the specs to hand, but one of them is a Kingston drive. > Our local supplier is out of 320 series drives, so we were looking for > others; will check out the 710s. It's crazy that so few drives can > actually be trusted. Yes. Welcome to our craziness! -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
